Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:21:25.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A generalisation of Varnavides’s theorem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2024

Asaf Shapira*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A linear equation $E$ is said to be sparse if there is $c\gt 0$ so that every subset of $[n]$ of size $n^{1-c}$ contains a solution of $E$ in distinct integers. The problem of characterising the sparse equations, first raised by Ruzsa in the 90s, is one of the most important open problems in additive combinatorics. We say that $E$ in $k$ variables is abundant if every subset of $[n]$ of size $\varepsilon n$ contains at least $\text{poly}(\varepsilon )\cdot n^{k-1}$ solutions of $E$. It is clear that every abundant $E$ is sparse, and Girão, Hurley, Illingworth, and Michel asked if the converse implication also holds. In this note, we show that this is the case for every $E$ in four variables. We further discuss a generalisation of this problem which applies to all linear equations.

Type
Paper
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

Turán-type questions are some of the most well-studied problems in combinatorics. They typically ask how ‘dense’ should an object be in order to guarantee that it contains a certain small substructure. In the setting of graphs, this question asks how many edges an $n$ -vertex graph should contain in order to force the appearance of some fixed graph $H$ . For example, a central open problem in this area asks, given a bipartite graph $H$ , to determine the smallest $T=T_{H}(\varepsilon )$ so that for every $n\geq T$ every $n$ -vertex graph with $\varepsilon\!\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n\\ 2\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ edges contains a copy of $H$ (see [Reference Bukh3] for recent progress). A closely related question which also attracted a lot of attention is the supersaturation problem, introduced by Erdős and Simonovits [Reference Erdős and Simonovits5] in the 80s. In the setting of Turán’s problem for bipartite $H$ , the supersaturation question asks to determine the largest $T^*_{H}(\varepsilon )$ so that every $n$ -vertex graph with $\varepsilon\! \left(\begin{smallmatrix}n\\ 2\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ edges contains at least $(T^*_{H}(\varepsilon )-o_n(1)) \cdot n^h$ labelled copies of $H$ , where $h=|V(H)|$ and $o_n(1)$ denotes a quantity tending to $0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ . One of the central conjectures in this area, due to Sidorenko, suggests that $T^*_{H}(\varepsilon ) = \varepsilon ^{m}$ , where $m=|E(H)|$ (see [Reference Conlon, Kim, Lee and Lee4] for recent progress).

We now describe two problems in additive number theory, which are analogous to the graph problems described above. We say that a homogenous linear equation $\sum ^k_{i=1}a_ix_i=0$ is invariant if $\sum _ia_i=0$ . All equations we consider here will be invariant and homogenous. Given a fixed linear equation $E$ , the Turán problem for $E$ asks to determine the smallest $R=R_{E}(\varepsilon )$ so that for every $n\geq R$ , every $S\subseteq [n]\,:\!=\,\{1,\ldots,n\}$ of size $\varepsilon n$ contains a solution to $E$ in distinct integers. For example, when $E$ is the equation $a+b=2c$ we get the Erdős–Turán–Roth problem on sets avoiding $3$ -term arithmetic progressions (see [Reference Kelley and Meka7] for recent progress). Continuing the analogy with the previous paragraph, we can now ask to determine the largest $R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )$ so that every $S \subseteq [n]$ of size $\varepsilon n$ contains at least $(R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )-o_n(1)) \cdot n^{k-1}$ solutions to $E$ , where $k$ is the number of variables in $E$ . We now turn to discuss two aspects which make the arithmetic problems more challenging than the graph problems.

Let us say that $E$ is sparse if there is $C=C(H)$ so thatFootnote 1 $R_E(\varepsilon ) \leq \varepsilon ^{-C}$ . The first aspect which makes the arithmetic landscape more varied is that while in the case of graphs it is well known (and easy) that for every bipartite $H$ we have $T_{H}(\varepsilon )=\text{poly}(1/\varepsilon )$ , this is no longer the case in the arithmetic setting. Indeed, while Sidon’s equation $a+b=c+d$ is sparse, a well-known construction of Behrend [Reference Behrend1] shows that $a+b=2c$ is not sparse.Footnote 2 The problem of determining which equations $E$ are sparse is a wide open problem due to Ruzsa, see Section $9$ in [Reference Ruzsa9].

Our main goal in this paper is to study another aspect which differentiates the arithmetic and graph-theoretic problems. While it is easy to translate a bound for $T_{H}(\varepsilon )$ into a bound for $T^*_{H}(\varepsilon )$ (in particular, establishing that $T^*_{H}(\varepsilon ) \geq \text{poly}(\varepsilon )$ for all bipartite $H$ ), it is not clear if one can analogously transform a bound for $R_{E}(\varepsilon )$ into a bound for $R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )$ . The first reason is that while we can average over all subsets of vertices of graphs, we can only average over “structured” subsets of $[n]$ . This makes is hard to establish a black-box reduction/transformation between $R_{E}(\varepsilon )$ and $R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )$ . The second complication is that, as we mentioned above, we do not know which equations are sparse. This makes it hard to directly relate these two quantities. Following [Reference Girão, Hurley, Illingworth and Michel6], we say that $E$ is abundant if $R^*_{E}(\varepsilon ) \geq \varepsilon ^C$ for some $C=C(E)$ . Clearly, if $E$ is abundant then it is also sparse. Girão et al. [Reference Girão, Hurley, Illingworth and Michel6] asked if the converse also holds, that is, if one can transform a polynomial bound for $R_{E}(\varepsilon )$ into a polynomial bound for $R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )$ . Our aim in this note is to prove the following.

Theorem 1.1. If an invariant equation $E$ in four variables is sparse, then it is also abundant. More precisely, if $R_{E}(\varepsilon ) \leq \varepsilon ^{-C}$ then $R^*_{E}(\varepsilon ) \geq \frac 12\varepsilon ^{8C}$ for all small enough $\varepsilon$ .

Given the above discussion, it is natural to extend the problem raised in [Reference Girão, Hurley, Illingworth and Michel6] to all equations $E$ .

Problem 1.2. Is it true that for every invariant equation $E$ there is $c=c(E)$ , so that for all small enough $\varepsilon$

\begin{equation*} R^*_E(\varepsilon ) \geq 1/R_E(\varepsilon ^c)\;. \end{equation*}

It is interesting to note that Varnavides [Reference Varnavides11] (implicitly) gave a positive answer to Problem 1.2 when $E$ is the equation $a+b=2c$ . In fact, essentially the same argument gives a positive answer to this problem for all $E$ in three variables. Hence, Problem 1.2 can be considered as a generalisation of Varnavides’s theorem. Problem 1.2 was also implicitly studied previously in [Reference Bloom2,Reference Kosciuszko8]. In particular, Kosciuszko [Reference Kosciuszko8], extending earlier work of Schoen and Sisask [Reference Schoen and Sisask10], gave direct lower bounds for $R^*_E$ which, thanks to [Reference Kelley and Meka7], are quasi-polynomially related to those of $R_E$ .

The proof of Theorem 1.1 is given in the next section. For the sake of completeness, and as a preparation for the proof of Theorem 1.1, we start the next section with a proof that Problem 1.2 holds for equations in three variables. We should point that a somewhat unusual aspect of the proof of Theorem 1.1 is that it uses a Behrend-type [Reference Behrend1] geometric argument in order to find solutions, rather than avoid them.

2. Proofs

In the first subsection below, we give a concise proof of Varnavides’s theorem, namely, of the fact that Problem 1.2 has a positive answer for equations with three variables. In the second subsection, we prove Theorem 1.1.

2.1 Proof of Varnavides’s theorem

Note that for every equation $E$ , there is a constant $C$ such that for every prime $p\geq Cn$ every solution of $E$ with integers $x_i \in [n]$ over $\mathbb{F}_p$ is also a solution over $\mathbb{R}$ . Since we can always find a prime $Cn \leq p \leq 2Cn$ , this means that we can assume that $n$ itself is primeFootnote 3 and count solutions over $\mathbb{F}_n$ . So let $S$ be a subset of $\mathbb{F}_n$ of size $\varepsilon n$ and let $R=R_E(\varepsilon/2)$ . For $b=(b_0,b_1) \in (\mathbb{F}_n)^2$ and $x \in [R]$ let $f_{b}(x)=b_1x+b_0$ andFootnote 4 $f_{b}([R])=\{x \in [R]\,{:}\, f_{b}(x) \in S\}$ . Pick $b_0$ and $b_1$ uniformly at random from $\mathbb{F}_n$ and note that for any $x \in [R]$ the integer $f_{b}(x)$ is uniformly distributed in $\mathbb{F}_n$ . Hence,

\begin{equation*} \mathbb {E}|\,f_{b}([R])|=\varepsilon R\;. \end{equation*}

It is also easy to see that for every $x \neq y$ the random variables $f_b(x)$ and $f_b(y)$ are pairwise independent. Hence,

\begin{equation*} \mathrm {Var}|\,f_{b}([R])| \leq \varepsilon R\;. \end{equation*}

Therefore, by Chebyshev’s Inequality we have

\begin{equation*} \mathbb {P}\left [|\,f_{b}([R])| \leq \frac {\varepsilon }{2} R\right ] \leq \frac {\varepsilon R}{\varepsilon ^2 R^2/4} \leq 1/2\;. \end{equation*}

In other words, at least $n^2/2$ choices of $b$ are such that $|\,f_{b}([R])| \geq \frac{\varepsilon }{2}R$ . By our choice of $R$ , this means that $f_{b}([R])$ contains three distinct integers $x_1,x_2,x_3$ which satisfy $E$ and such that $f_{b}(x_i) \in S$ . Note that if $x_1,x_2,x_3$ satisfy $E$ , then so do $f_{b}(x_1),f_{b}(x_2),f_{b}(x_3)$ . Let us denote the triple $(f_{b}(x_1),f_{b}(x_2),f_{b}(x_3))$ by $s_{b}$ . We have thus obtained $n^2/2$ solutions $s_b$ of $E$ in $S$ . To conclude the proof, we just need to estimate the number of times we have double counted each solution $s_{b}$ . Observe that for every choice of $s_{b}=\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$ and distinct $x_1,x_2,x_3 \in [R]$ , there is exactly one choice of $b=(b_0,b_1) \in (\mathbb{F}_n)^2$ for which $b_1x_i+b_0=s_i$ for every $1 \leq i \leq 3$ . Since $[R]$ contains at most $R^2$ solutions of $E$ this means that for every solution $s_1,s_2,s_3 \in S$ , there are at most $R^2$ choices of $b$ for which $s_{b}=\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$ . We conclude that $S$ contains at least $n^2/2R^2$ distinct solutions, thus completing the proof.

2.2 Proof of Theorem 1.1

As in the proof above, we assume that $n$ is a prime and count the number of solutions of the equation $E:\,\sum ^4_{i=1}a_ix_i=0$ over $\mathbb{F}_n$ . Let $S$ be a subset of $\mathbb{F}_n$ of size $\varepsilon n$ , and let $d$ and $t$ be integers to be chosen later and let $X$ be some subset of $[t]^d$ to be chosen later as well. For every $b=(b_0,\ldots,b_d)\in (\mathbb{F}_n)^{d+1}$ and $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d) \in X$ , we use $f_b(x)$ to denote $b_0+\sum ^d_{i=1}b_ix_i$ and $f_b(X)=\{x \in X\,{:}\,\, f_b(x) \in S\}$ . We call $b$ good if $|\,f_b(X)| \geq \varepsilon |X|/2$ . We claim that at least half of all possible choices of $b$ are good. To see this, pick $b=(b_0,\ldots,b_{d})$ uniformly at random from $(\mathbb{F}_n)^{d+1}$ , and note that for any $x \in X$ the integer $f_b(x)$ is uniformly distributed in $\mathbb{F}_n$ . Hence,

\begin{equation*} \mathbb {E}|\,f_b(X)|=\varepsilon |X|\;. \end{equation*}

It is also easy to see that for every $x \neq y \in X$ the random variables $f_b(x)$ and $f_b(y)$ are pairwise independent. Hence,

\begin{equation*} \mathrm {Var}|\,f_b(X)| \leq \varepsilon |X|\;. \end{equation*}

Therefore, by Chebyshev’s Inequality we haveFootnote 5

(1) \begin{equation} \mathbb{P}\left [ |\,f_b(X) | \leq \frac{\varepsilon }{2}|X|\right ] \leq 4/\varepsilon |X| \leq 1/2\;, \end{equation}

implying that at least half of the $b$ ’s are good. To finish the proof, we need to make sure that every such choice of a good $b$ will “define” a solution $s_b$ in $S$ in a way that $s_b$ will not be identical to too many other $s_{b'}$ . This will be achieved by a careful choice of $d$ , $t$ , and $X$ .

We first choose $X$ to be the largest subset of $[t]^d$ containing no three points on one line. We claim that

(2) \begin{equation} |X| \geq t^{d-2}/d\;. \end{equation}

Indeed, for an integer $r$ let $B_r$ be the points $x \in [t]^d$ satisfying $\sum ^d_{i=1}x^2_i=r$ . Then every point of $[t]^d$ lies on one such $B_r$ , where $1 \leq r \leq dt^2$ . Hence, at least one such $B_r$ contains at least $t^{d-2}/d$ of the points of $[t]^d$ . Furthermore, since each set $B_r$ is a subset of a sphere, it does not contain three points on one line.

We now turn to choose $t$ and $d$ . Let $C$ be such that $R_E(\varepsilon ) \leq (1/\varepsilon )^C$ . Set $a=\sum ^4_{i=1}|a_i|$ and pick $t$ and $d$ satisfying

(3) \begin{equation} (1/\varepsilon )^{2C} \geq t^d \geq \left (\frac{2dt^2a^d}{\varepsilon }\right )^C\;. \end{equation}

Taking $t=2^{\sqrt{\log 1/\varepsilon }}$ and $d=2C\sqrt{\log 1/\varepsilon }$ satisfiesFootnote 6 the above for all small enough $\varepsilon$ . Note that by (3) and our choice of $C$ , we have $R_E\left (\frac{\varepsilon }{2dt^2a^d}\right ) \leq t^d$ .

Let us call a collection of four vectors $x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4 \in X$ helpful if they are distinct, and they satisfy $E$ in each coordinate, that is, for every $1 \leq i \leq d$ we have $\sum ^4_{j=1}a_jx^j_i=0$ . We claim that for every good $r$ , there are useful $x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4 \in f_r(X)$ . To see this let $M$ denote the integers $1,\ldots,(at)^d$ and note that (2) along with the fact that $r$ is good implies that

(4) \begin{equation} |\,f_r(X)| \geq \varepsilon |X|/2 \geq \frac{\varepsilon t^d}{2t^2d} = \frac{\varepsilon }{2dt^2a^d}\cdot |M| \end{equation}

Now think of every $d$ -tuple $x \in X$ as representing an integer $p(x) \in [M]$ written in base $at$ . So we can also think of $f_r(X)$ as a subset of $[M]$ of density at least $\varepsilon/2dt^2a^d$ . By (3), we have

\begin{equation*} M = (at)^d \geq t^d \geq R_E\left (\frac {\varepsilon }{2dt^2a^d}\right )\;, \end{equation*}

implying that there are distinct $x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4 \in f_r(X)$ for which $\sum ^4_{j=1}a_j\cdot p(x^j)=0$ . But note that since the entries of $x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$ are from $[t]$ , there is no carry when evaluating $\sum ^4_{j=1}a_j\cdot p(x^j)$ in base $at$ , implying that $x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$ satisfy $E$ in each coordinate. Finally, the fact that $\sum _ja_j=0$ and that $x_i^1,x_i^2,x_i^3,x_i^4$ satisfy $E$ for each $1 \leq i \leq d$ allows us to deduce that

\begin{equation*} \sum ^4_{j=1}a_j \cdot f_b(x^j)=\sum ^4_{j=1}a_j \cdot \left(b_0+\sum ^d_{i=1}b_ix^j_i\right)=\sum ^d_{i=1}b_i\cdot \left(\sum ^4_{j=1}a_jx^j_i\right)=0\;, \end{equation*}

which means that $f_b(x^1),f_b(x^2),f_b(x^3),f_b(x^4)$ forms a solution of $E$ . So for every good $b$ , let $s_b$ be (some choice of) $f_b(x^1),f_b(x^2),f_b(x^3),f_b(x^4) \in S$ as defined above. We know from (1) that at least $n^{d+1}/2$ of all choices of $b$ are good, so we have thus obtained $n^{d+1}/2$ solutions $s_b$ of $E$ in $S$ . To finish the proof, we need to bound the number of times we have counted the same solution in $S$ , that is, the number of $b$ for which $s_b$ can equal a certain $4$ -tuple in $S$ satisfying $E$ .

Fix $s=\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\}$ and recall that $s_{b}=s$ only if there is a helpful $4$ -tuple $x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$ (as defined just before equation (4)) such that $f_{b}(x^i)=s_i$ . We claim that for every helpful $4$ -tuple $x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$ , there are at most $n^{d-2}$ choices of $b=(b_0,\ldots,b_d)$ for which $s_b=s$ . Indeed recall that by our choice of $X$ the vectors $x^1,x^2,x^3$ are distinct and do not lie on one line. Hence, they are affine independentFootnote 7 over $\mathbb{R}$ . But since the entries of $x^i$ belong to $[t]$ and $t \leq 1/\varepsilon$ , we see that for large enough $n$ the vectors $x^1,x^2,x^3$ are also affine independent over $\mathbb{F}_n$ . This means that the system of three linear equations:

\begin{align*} b_0+b_1x^1_1+\ldots +b_dx^1_d=s_1 \\ b_0+b_1x^2_1+\ldots +b_dx^2_d=s_2 \\ b_0+b_1x^3_1+\ldots +b_dx^3_d=s_3 \end{align*}

(in $d+1$ unknowns $b_0,\ldots,b_d$ over $\mathbb{F}_n$ ) has only $n^{d-2}$ solutions, implying the desired bound on the number of choices of $b$ . Since $|X| \leq t^d \leq (1/\varepsilon )^{2C}$ by (3), we see that $X$ contains at most $(1/\varepsilon )^{8C}$ helpful $4$ -tuples. Altogether this means that for every $s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4 \in S$ satisfying $E$ , there are at most $(1/\varepsilon )^{8C}n^{d-2}$ choices of $b$ for which $s_b=s$ . Since we have previously deduced that $S$ contains at least $\frac 12n^{d+1}$ solutions $s_b$ , we get that $S$ contains at least $\frac 12\varepsilon ^{8C}n^3$ distinct solutions, as needed.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Yuval Wigderson and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions.

Footnotes

Supported in part by ERC Consolidator Grant 863438 and NSF-BSF Grant 20196.

1 It is easy to see that this definition is equivalent to the one we used in the abstract.

2 More precisely, it shows that in this case $R_{E}(\varepsilon ) \geq (1/\varepsilon )^{c\log 1/\varepsilon }$ . Here and throughout this note, all logarithms are base $2$ .

3 The factor $2C$ loss in the density of $S$ can be absorbed by the factor $c$ in Problem 1.2.

4 Since $f([R])$ is a subset of $[R]$ (rather than $S$ ), it might have been more accurate to denote $f([R])$ by $f^{-1}([R])$ but we drop the $-1$ to make the notation simpler.

5 We will make sure $|X| \geq 8/\varepsilon$ .

6 Recalling (2), we see that since $C\geq 1$ (indeed, a standard probabilistic deletion method argument shows that if an equation has $k$ variables, then $C(E) \geq 1+\frac{1}{k-2}$ ), we indeed have $|X| \geq 8/\varepsilon$ as we promised earlier.

7 That is, if we turn these three $d$ -dimensional vectors into $(d+1)$ -dimensional vectors, by adding a new coordinate whose value is $1$ , we get three linearly independent vectors.

References

Behrend, F. A. (1946) On sets of integers which contain no three terms in arithmetical progression. Proc Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 32(12) 331332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, T. F. (2012) Translation invariant equations and the method of Sanders. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 44(5) 10501067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bukh, B. (to appear) Extremal graphs without exponentially-small bicliques. Duke Math. J.Google Scholar
Conlon, D., Kim, J. H., Lee, C. and Lee, J. (2018) Some advances on Sidorenko’s conjecture. J. London Math. Soc. 98(3) 593608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdős, P. and Simonovits, M. (1983) Supersaturated graphs and hypergraphs. Combinatorica 3(2) 181192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girão, A., Hurley, E., Illingworth, F. and Michel, L. Abundance: asymmetric graph removal lemmas and integer solutions to linear equations. arXiv: 2310.18202.Google Scholar
Kelley, Z. and Meka, R. (2023) Strong bounds for 3-progressions. arXiv: 2302.05537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosciuszko, T. Counting solutions to invariant equations in dense sets. arXiv: 2306.08567.Google Scholar
Ruzsa, I. Z. (1993) Solving a linear equation in a set of integers I. Acta Arith. 65(3) 259282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, T. and Sisask, O. (2016) Roth’s theorem for four variables and additive structures in sums of sparse sets. Forum Math. Sigma 4 e5,28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varnavides, P. (1959) On certain sets of positive density. J. London Math. Soc 34(3) 358360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar